THE STATE OF NEW YORK

SUPREME, COURT OF
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: PART 59

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK DECISION AND ORDER

ON DEFENDANT'S
against MOTION TO COMPE,L
COMPLIANCE, 'OrITH
DONALD J. TRUMP, SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
TO STEPHANIE CLIFFORD
Defendant.
Ind. No.71543/2023

HON. JUAN M. MERCHAN AJ.S.C.:

On April 4,2023, DonaldJ. Trump, the Defendant, was araigned before this Court on an
indictrnent chatging him u/ith 34 counts of Falsifying Business Records in the First Degree, in violation
of Penal Law $ 175.10. On Match 78,2024, Defendant issued a subpoena daces tecam ftereinafter
"Subpoena") to Stephanie Cliffod z/k/a "stormy Daniels" (hereinafter "Daniels") seeking all
materials rclated to the documentary ftl-r titled "Stormy" (hereinafter "Documentary"). The subpoena

also sought all documents, for the period between Apin, 2023 and the present, relating to
communications with "Michael Cohen or his tepresentatives, I(aten McDougal, Elizabeth Jearr
Catoll,Jessica Leeds, ot Natasha Stoynoff." Daniels 3/18/24 Subpoena. Finally, the subpoena sought
all documents "relating to communications with the U.S. Attomey's Office for the Southern District
of New York" during the period of April 2018 to the present . Id. On April 8, 2l24,Defendant filed a

pre-motion lettet indicating his intent to file a motion to compel compliance vrith the Subpoena. On
April 9, 2024, Clark O. Brewster, attorney for Daniels, filed a letter opposing Defendant's modon to
compel as well as cross moving to quash the Subpoena. On April 12, 2024, the Defendant frled his
motion to compel. On April 19,2024, the People filed a motion in opposition to Defendant's modon
to compel and ctoss moved to quash the Subpoena.

DrscussroN
For the following reasons, Defendant's motion to compel is DENIED and the People and
Daniels'motions to quash are GRANTED.
CPL S 610-20 provides that any party to a cdminal ptoceeding may issue a subpoena. CPL S

610.20(3) specifically provides that an attorney fot a defendant in a criminal acdon may issue a
subpoena of arry u.itness whom the defendant is entitled to call in such acdon or ptoceeding. To
"sustain a subpoena," the issuing party must demonstrate "that the testimony or evidence sought is
reasonably Iikely to be relevant and material to the ptoceedings and that the subpoena is not overbtoad

or uffeasonably burdensome." See CPL S 610.20(4); see also, Peoph u. Ko7fowski,11 NY3d 223,242
[2008] (the proper purpose of a subpoena daces tecum is to compel the production of specific documents
that ate televant and material to facts at issue in a judicial proceeding). When disputes arise concerning
the "validity or ptopriety" of a subpoena, the coutt must tesolve whether the subpoena is enforceable.

See Application of Dauis,88 Misc2d 938,940 [Cti-. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1976); see also, Peopk u. Natal,75 NY2d
379,385 [1990]. Because the subpoenaedmzteials are returnable to the court, it follows that the court
retains the ultimate authodty on the outer parameters of the subpoena pou/ers. Su People u. D.N.,62
Misc3d 544 [Crim. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2018], internalfi citingMatter of Tery D.,81NY2d 1042 [1993].
The Court of Appeals has held that a subpoena is propedy quashed when the party issuing the
subpoena fails "to demonstrate any theory of relevancy and materiality, but instead, merely desire[s]

the oppotunity for an unrestrained foray into confidendal records in the hope that the unearthing of
some unspecified information [w"ill] enable [them] to impeach witness[es]." People a. Cissendanner,4S

NY2d543,549l19791.Asubpoena ducestecammaynotgenetallybe"usedfotthepurposeofdiscovery
or to ascertain the existence of evidenc e." Id. at 557 . Conversely, coufts have denied a motion to quash
where the subpoena demands production of specific documents which are televant and material to
the proceedings. See People u. Daran,32 Misc3d 225,229 [C.i-. Ct. I(ngs Co. 2071, Laporte, J] ("th.
defendant established that the solicited data is relevant and material to the determination of guilt or
innocence, and not sought solely in the speculative hope of fi.dirg possible impeachment of witness'
genetal credibility"); People u. Campanella,2T Misc3d 737 [Dist. Ct. Suffolk Co. 2009, Horowitz, J].
When deciding a motion to quash a subpoena, "access must be afforded to ...data relevant
and matedal to the determination of guilt ot innocence, as, for example, when a request fot access is

dkected towatd revealing specific 'biases, prejudices or ulterior motives of the witness as they may
relate directly to issues or personalities in the case at hand' or when it involves other information
which if known to the tdet of fact, could very well affect the outcome of the trial ,. . there is no such
compulsion when requests to examine tecotds are motivated by nothing more than impeachment of
witnesses'genetal credibiligv." People u. Gissendannerat54S, quotingDauis a. Alaska,415 US 308,316

[1974]. Thus, this Cout must detetmine, among other things, whether the subpoena seeks information
to be used for impeachment of general credibility or is instead directed touards revealing specific
biases, preiudices ot ulterior motives related directly to personalities or issues in the instant matter;
whether the solicited information is material to the quesdon of guilt or innocence, or nothing more
than a'fishing expedition.'

Defendant's first request seeks "all Documents that telate to the Documentary and one or
more of the following topics..," Defendant's ftrst request mirrors that of the requests sent to NBC
Univetsal on March 77,2024, in a subpoena that was quashed by this Court on April 5,2024. Fust,
Defendant seeks all documents "that relate to the Documentary and one or mote of the following
topics: (a) the premiete of the Documentary, (b) the release date of the Documentary, (c) editing of
the Document^ry, (d) promotion of the Documefit^ry, (e) matketing of the Documentary, (D
^ny
fotm of compensation relating to the Documentary, G) any rights to the Documentary maintained
by Stephanie Clifford, ft) agteements between Stephanie Clifford and NBCUniversal or any of its
affiliates, (i) the Manhattan District Attorney's Office, 0 District Attorney Alvin Bragg, ft) Susan

Hoffinger, Q Rebecca Mangold, (m) Joshua Steinglass, (n) Matthew Colangelo, (o) the trial in People u.

Trurnp,Indictment Numbet 77543-23, involving charges filed by the Manhattan District Attotney's
Office, (p) Michael Cohen, and (q) DonaldJ. Trump." Daniels 3/18/24 Subpoena. This requestis
ovetbroad and seeks genetal discovery.
Defendant's second request seeks, for the time period bet'nveen Apil2023 to the present, "all
documents relating to communications with the following: Michael Cohen or his representatives;
Karen McDougal; Elizabeth Jean Cartoll; Jessica Leeds; or Natasha Stoynoff." Daniels 3/18/24
Subpoena. This request is overbroad, seeks general discovery, and is not limited to the subject matter

of the case.
((all
Defendant's thLd recluest seeks, for the time period between Aprit 2018 to the present,
Documents relating to the communications with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District
of New York. Daniels 3 / 18 /24 Subpoena. This request is overbroad, seeks general discovery, and is
not limited to the subject matter of the case.
 Fot the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to compel is DENIED and the People and
Daniels'modons to quash are GRANTED.

SO ORDERED.

4pr1,23,2024
New Yotk, New York

IPR 2 3 tu{
Judge of the Court of Claims

ffi'& SgROHilT